Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Village Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer previews 84 affordable senior units, new retail and historic‑house relocation in Littleton village project
Summary
Poly Companies previewed plans for about 84 deeply affordable senior units at 410 Great Road, an anchor retail building and relocation of a historic house; board members urged clearer renderings, parking and truck‑loading details and asked for milestone dates ahead of a July 9 submission.
Morgan Pearson of the Poly Companies presented a preview of upcoming submissions for the village redevelopment at the Planning Board meeting on June 25, outlining plans for affordable senior housing, additional retail and the planned relocation of a historic house to the project site.
Pearson told the board the team plans to submit an application for roughly 84 deeply affordable senior housing units at 410 Great Road and said the developer is partnering with Hebrew SeniorLife on the project. "We were able to meet with the historical commission and they unanimously voted in favor of the relocation," Pearson said, describing how the team intends to preserve and relocate the historic structure and to install a monument acknowledging the building's history.
Pearson also previewed phase‑two retail: the developers are pursuing an anchor retail tenant (a footprint described in the presentation as roughly comparable to a Trader Joe's) and a bank that would include a drive‑through; he said some elements fall outside the form‑based code and that tenant operational needs are shaping placement and parking decisions. The team estimated a future phase could include about 140–175 additional housing units in a larger block, but cautioned those figures are preliminary and constrained by parking and construction costs.
Board members and attendees raised design and circulation concerns: several members objected to the anchor building's placement away from the primary retail street and urged stronger street activation, reduced visible parking, and design changes to avoid a monolithic facade. Members also pressed for clearer truck‑turning and loading plans to prevent conflicts with adjacent housing; developers said engineers had modeled WB‑67 truck paths and would refine loading and circulation details.
Pearson agreed to provide improved renderings, a list of permitting milestones, and clearer documentation ahead of the submission planned for the week following the meeting. He also said the team would maintain community engagement via a project landing page and frequent updates and would coordinate with the historical commission on timing for physically moving the historic building.
Next steps: the developer expects to file the submission in the week after the meeting and to return to the board on July 9 with revised visuals, waiver lists and milestone dates requested by the board.
